2 ms·

> How could this be solved though? We aren't talking about tornadoes or earthquakes. Let's remember that spammers are people. How would we "solve" people who

> How could this be solved though? We aren't talking about tornadoes or earthquakes. Let's remember that spammers are people. How would we "solve" people who spread toxic waste on city streets? That is exactly the way to deal with spammers. They have names, addresses, bank accounts, finally bodies. All of these could be located and dealt with if law enforcement officials felt like it. Until spammers are dealt with in exactly the same way as other types of miscreants who love to piss in our collective soup, the problem will persist and grow arbitrarily worse.

jarrett 15y ago
I doubt you could ban the type of spam we're talking about. Sure, it's already illegal to send spam emails. But that's because email can reasonably be defined. Not so for spam sites. What makes a site "spammy?" As reflected in this thread, a site is spammy if it a) ranks better than it should in search, b) fails to provide useful content, and c) is commercial. Which of these can be turned into an objective test? Just (c), I would venture. And that's clearly unworkable. (a) and (b) are far too subjective and vague to be codified. Also, I think any effective ban would run far afoul of the 1st Amendment. Even if you could carve out a narrow 1st Amendment exception for certain kinds well-defined spammy conduct, spammers would inevitably just skirt around the edges of that. They'd adapt just like they always do.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  > spammers would inevitably just skirt around the edges Imagine if spam were treated in the same way as child porn, the apparent "root password to the US Constitution." Or the way drug smuggling is treated in East Asia.
chadgeidel 15y ago
I love this idea, but who decides what "spam" is? There's a lot of spam I get that I don't like, but isn't much different than other marketing efforts. It's not all V1agr4 emails and 419 scams. IMHO this is akin to the "pornography" issue. What is "pornography"? "I know it when I see it".
yaakov34 15y ago
Please don't get the government involved in this. As much as I dislike eHow.com, I don't think they need to be dragged away in chains for "SEOing one's way to the top of search results, title 256, section D". That's not a good kind of call for the government to make.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  > I don't think they need to be dragged away in chains Why not? I would love to see spammers imprisoned or perhaps even publicly flogged. With hangings for repeat offenders. The social cost of spammers (in terms of the time and money wasted on filtering attempts) may well be comparable to that of burglars.

jarrett 15y ago

I doubt you could ban the type of spam we're talking about. Sure, it's already illegal to send spam emails. But that's because email can reasonably be defined. Not so for spam sites. What makes a site "spammy?" As reflected in this thread, a site is spammy if it a) ranks better than it should in search, b) fails to provide useful content, and c) is commercial. Which of these can be turned into an objective test? Just (c), I would venture. And that's clearly unworkable. (a) and (b) are far too subjective and vague to be codified. Also, I think any effective ban would run far afoul of the 1st Amendment. Even if you could carve out a narrow 1st Amendment exception for certain kinds well-defined spammy conduct, spammers would inevitably just skirt around the edges of that. They'd adapt just like they always do.

asciilifeform 15y ago
> spammers would inevitably just skirt around the edges Imagine if spam were treated in the same way as child porn, the apparent "root password to the US Constitution." Or the way drug smuggling is treated in East Asia.

chadgeidel 15y ago

I love this idea, but who decides what "spam" is? There's a lot of spam I get that I don't like, but isn't much different than other marketing efforts. It's not all V1agr4 emails and 419 scams. IMHO this is akin to the "pornography" issue. What is "pornography"? "I know it when I see it".

yaakov34 15y ago

Please don't get the government involved in this. As much as I dislike eHow.com, I don't think they need to be dragged away in chains for "SEOing one's way to the top of search results, title 256, section D". That's not a good kind of call for the government to make.

asciilifeform 15y ago
> I don't think they need to be dragged away in chains Why not? I would love to see spammers imprisoned or perhaps even publicly flogged. With hangings for repeat offenders. The social cost of spammers (in terms of the time and money wasted on filtering attempts) may well be comparable to that of burglars.